951 F. Supp. 2d 1100
E.D. Cal.2013Background
- Court analyzes remedy for NEPA deficiencies in the 2004 SNFPA SEIS for the Sierra Nevada Framework.
- Court-denies vacatur of the 2004 Framework and injunctive relief; orders a supplemental EIS by Aug 30, 2013.
- 2004 Framework amended 11 NF plans over 11.5 million acres to balance old-forest species and wildfire risk.
- Four related suits challenged NEPA/NFMA; remedy phase addressed only NEPA deficiency in the SEIS.
- Remand proceedings left the 2004 Framework in place pending remedy; remedy-phase evidence evaluated without deference to agency experts.
- Interim management may continue under the 2004 Framework while the supplemental EIS is prepared.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the 2004 Framework be vacated? | Vacatur justified to remedy NEPA defect. | Vacatur would be disruptive and unnecessary; balance equities favor leaving framework intact. | Vacatur denied; remedy limited to supplemental EIS. |
| Should there be injunctive relief against existing projects? | Region-wide injunction to halt non-WUI activities. | Injunctive relief inappropriate; remedies at law suffice; avoid disruption. | Injunctive relief denied; continue projects under 2004 Framework with SEIS remedy. |
| Is a supplemental EIS required to address the deficiency? | Additional analyses not necessary beyond vacatur remedy. | NEPA deficiency must be corrected with a supplemental EIS. | Supplemental EIS required addressing the range of alternatives deficiency. |
| How do Allied-Signal factors affect vacatur here? | Allied-Signal factors support vacatur due to deficiencies. | Defects are minor; equity supports not vacating. | Allied-Signal analysis favors leaving framework in place pending SEIS. |
| What about public interest and balance of equities? | Vacate and halt projects to protect environment. | Public interest supports wildfire reduction, forest health, and economic stability under 2004 Framework. | Public interest and equities favor keeping 2004 Framework in place while SEIS is prepared. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Wildlife Federation v. Espy, 45 F.3d 1337 (9th Cir. 1995) (equitable relief influences vacatur decision)
- Humane Society v. Locke, 626 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2010) (remand without vacatur permissible)
- Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 615 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2010) (NEPA relief subject to equity)
- Western Oil and Gas Ass’n v. EPA, 633 F.2d 803 (9th Cir. 1980) (equitable relief considerations in agency actions)
- California Communities Against Toxics v. EPA, 688 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2012) (vacatur may be avoided when equity demands)
- Sierra Forest Legacy v. Bosworth, 510 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2007) (NEPA violation relief limited when decision-maker fully informed)
- Laguna Greenbelt v. U.S. DOT, 42 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994) (NEPA procedural violations not automatically injunctive relief)
- Warm Springs Dam Task Force v. Gribble, 621 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1980) (procedural NEPA errors not always enjoining)
- Idaho Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392 (9th Cir. 1995) (resource and economic considerations in equity)
- Allied-Signal, Inc. v. NRC, 988 F.2d 146 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (two-factor test for vacatur)
- eBay v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (Supreme Court 2006) (permanent injunction standards)